Delhi High Court
Ram Manglani vs State & Ors. on 30 May, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Order delivered on: May 30, 2014
+ TEST CAS 34/2012
RAM MANGLANI .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ankit Jain, Adv. with
petitioner in person.
Versus
STATE & ORS. ....Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
MANMOHAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has preferred the present probate petition under
Section 276 of the Indian Succession (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") seeking Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 1st
August, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Will"), executed by
Sh. Hassaram (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased"), who expired
on 26th November, 1987 at Delhi, in respect of his movable and
immovable properties.
2. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is one of the
beneficiaries under the said Will. The deceased did not have any
natural son / daughter and his wife, Smt. Janki Manglani, pre-deceased
him on 28.04.2002. However, the deceased used to treat respondent
No. 2, Smt. Janki Manglani, as his daughter.
3. Notice of the petition was issued to vide order dated 8th May,
2012. The notices were also directed to be issued by publication of
citation in the Delhi Edition of Newspaper "Statesman". The said
notice was duly published on 27th November, 2012.
4. Upon service, the Respondent No.2 did not file any objections in
the matter and in fact filed an affidavit before Court stating that she
does not claim any right, title or interest in the estate left behind by the
deceased.
5. During the pendency of the petition, son of the Petitioner, Sh.
Joy Manglani, filed an application in the present petition, being I.A.
No.15888 of 2012, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, seeking his
impleadment in the present matter contending that he had share in the
estate left behind by the deceased. However, prior to filing of the said
application, an FIR bearing No.71 of 2012 had been registered in
respect of the said Will on the instances of Sh. Joy Manglani. The
Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police filed an application before
Court, being I.A. No.3087 of 2013, seeking the original Will for the
purposes of investigation. The said application was allowed vide order
dated 18th April, 2013 directing that the original Will be handed over to
the Investigating Officer, in the said FIR. The original Will was
accordingly handed over to the investigating officer. However, the
application filed by Sh. Joy Manglani, under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC,
seeking his impleadment was dismissed.
6. Thereafter, Sh. Joy Manglani filed an application under Section
340 Cr. P.C., being Criminal M.A. No.65 of 2014. When the said
application came up before this Court, no one appeared on behalf of
the applicant and in view thereof, the same was re-notified for 13th
May, 2014.
7. In the meanwhile, Sh. Joy Manglani challenged the order dated
30th November, 2013, passed by the Joint Registrar, by filing O.A.
No.22 of 2014.
8. However, during the pendency of the said O.A., the disputes and
differences between the Petitioner and Sh. Joy Manglani were
resolved. The application under Order XXIII Rule 3 was also filed
before Court which was taken on record on 21st March, 2014.
9. Vide order dated 21st March, 2014, the compromise arrived at
between the Petitioner and Sh. Joy Manglani was recorded. The said
compromise was to the effect that Sh. Joy Manglani accepted the
correctness, legality and validity of the said Will left behind by the
deceased and further gave his No Objection towards grant of Letters of
Administration in respect of the said Will, in favour of the Petitioner.
In consideration of the said settlement and in lieu of the claim of Sh.
Joy Manglani, the Petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.4.42 crores
to Sh. Joy Manglani in the following manner: -
(i) Rs.1.00 Crore paid to Sh. Joy Manglani by Sh. Ram Manglani
simultaneous to the recording of the present compromise before
Court.
(ii) The remaining amount of Rs.3.42 Crores had been agreed to be
paid by Sh. Ram Manglani to Sh. Joy Manglani, in the following
manner, by way of post dated cheques:
S.NO. DATE CHEQUE BANK AMOUNT
1. 30.04.2014 416360 HDFC 200.00 Lacs
Bank Ltd
2. 01.06.2014 416361 HDFC 7.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
3. 01.07.2014 416362 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
4. 01.08.2014 416363 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
5. 01.09.2014 416364 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
6. 01.10.2014 416365 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
7. 01.11.2014 416366 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
8. 01.12.2014 416367 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
9. 01.01.2015 416368 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
10. 01.02.2015 416369 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
11. 01.03.2015 416371 HDFC 15.00 Lacs
Bank
Ltd.
TOTAL 342.0 Lacs
10. It is the case of the petitioner that out of the aforesaid agreed
amount, an amount of Rs.3.00 crores already stands paid by the
Petitioner to Sh. Joy Manglani, in terms of the said compromise.
11. On 21st March, 2014 statement of Sh. Gurbux Motwani (PW-1)
who one of the attesting witnesses to the said Will was recorded. His
affidavit is exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/A. However, the said evidence
of Sh. Gurbux Motwani was given upon the certified copy of the said
Will since at that time the original Will was in the custody of
Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police.
12. Thereafter the Petitioner herein had filed application, being I.A.
No.7424 of 2014, seeking direction to the Economic Offences Wing of
Delhi Police to return the original Will to the record of this Court. The
said application was allowed vide order dated 24th April, 2014. In
compliance of the aforesaid direction, the original Will was filed by the
Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police, on 7th May, 2014.
13. On 13th May, 2014 the application filed by Sh. Joy Manglani
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., being Criminal M.A. No.65 of 2014 was
withdrawn.
14. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 17th May,
2014. On the said date of hearing, the evidence of the Petitioner herein
was recorded and his affidavit was marked as Exhibit PW-2/A. The
Petitioner also exhibited the original Death Certificate of Late Sh.
Hassaram as Exhibit PW-2/1. The schedule of Properties, which have
fallen into the hands of the Petitioner by virtue of the said Will, as
contained in the Schedule A, was exhibited as Exhibit PW-2/2. The
Petitioner closed his evidence on 17th May, 2014.
15. There are no objections, of any nature whatsoever, pending in
respect of said Will left behind by the deceased. Respondent No.2 has
not filed any objections in respect of the said Will and has filed an
affidavit before this Court stating that she does not claim any right,
title or interest of any nature whatsoever in the estate left behind by the
deceased. Sh. Joy Manglani, son of the Petitioner, had sought to
challenge the validity of the said Will. However, Sh. Joy Manglani has
already compromised the matter with the Petitioner, wherein Sh. Joy
Manglani has specifically accepted the correctness, validity of the said
Will and has further given his No Objection to the grant of Letters of
Administration of the said Will in favour of the Petitioner.
16. The testimony of the Petitioner has been recorded as Exhibit
PW-2/A and the Petitioner has duly proved the death certificate of Late
Sh. Hassaram as Exhibit PW-2/1. The Petitioner has further proved
Schedule A, containing the list of properties falling into the hands of
the Petitioner by virtue of the said Will, as Exhibit PW-2/2.
17. The testimony of Sh. Gurbux Motwanti has also been recorded
as Exhibit PW-1/A. who has specifically deposed that he had seen the
deceased had signed the said Will in his presence. It has been further
deposed by him after the deceased had signed the Will, he had signed
the said Will and the deceased had seen him signing. He further
deposed that he and the deceased had signed the said Will in the
presence of each other and both of them had seen each other signing
the said Will. It was further deposed that the deceased was both
physically as well as mentally fit at the time of execution of the said
Will. Further, Sh. Gurbux Motwani has also deposed that on 20th
September, 1987, the other attesting witness namely, Dr. N. Gajnani,
had also signed the said Will in his presence and in the presence of the
deceased. He has further deposed that both he and the deceased had
seen Dr. N. Gajnani signing the said Will.
18. Having considered the facts of the case as well as documents
placed on record, it appears that the Will dated 1st August, 1987 has
been proved beyond doubt. There is no impediment in the grant of
Letters of Administration in respect of said Will, left behind by the
deceased in favour of the Petitioner. Under these circumstances, the
present petition is allowed. The Letter of Administration is granted in
favour of petitioner qua the Will dated 1st August, 1987, in respect of
the immovable and movable properties of the deceased Sh. Hassaram
as detailed in Schedule A filed alongwith the petition, upon
the petitioner filing the requisite court fee.
19. The probate stands disposed of.
(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
MAY 30, 2014
